Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-notes-server

mcp-notes-server

by nadimhoss
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Search notes

search_notes
Read-only

Find notes by full-text search across titles, tags, and bodies. Results are ranked with snippets, prioritizing matches in titles and tags over body text.

Instructions

Full-text search over titles, tags, and bodies. Returns ranked hits with a snippet; matches in the title or tags outrank matches in the body.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax hits to return.
queryYesSearch terms, whitespace separated.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotation readOnlyHint already indicates read-only behavior. The description adds valuable details about return format (ranked hits with snippets) and ranking rules (title/tag matches outrank body matches), enhancing transparency beyond the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. Each phrase contributes meaning (search scope, return type, ranking rule), achieving high information density without clutter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Combined with the schema and annotation, the description covers purpose, return behavior, and ranking logic. An agent has sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly, including expected output format and ranking priority.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('query' and 'limit'). The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what is already documented, so it only meets the baseline for a fully covered schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('search'), resource ('notes'), and scope ('over titles, tags, and bodies'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_notes by emphasizing full-text search and ranking, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (for content-based search) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use list_notes to retrieve all notes'). It is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario, though explicit guidance would be stronger.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools